Article: Following The Cubs' Blueprint

[old nurse]

The Twins can afford a Lester type contract. Joe Mauer currently has the club big contract    They can't do two of them while having  5 other player earning over 10 million each.

[gunnarthor]

 

I disagree. The Twins certainly can develop young talent, make good trades, find a manager who is can be patient with the young players, and make good mid level FA pitching signings. I wouldn't even rule out the possibility of an "ace," pitcher acquisition until Falvey takes over and we have a better idea of what the plan is for this team. 

As long as the Pohlad's own this team, you're never going to see a high payroll.  Cleveland and the Royals are the teams the Twins should be copying.  Cleveland traded for Kluber - who was never a top 100 prospect - for example.  The Cubs have advantages that the Twins, Royals and Cleveland don't so it doesn't make sense to compare.  Teams with 200m payrolls can erase errors that the Twins can't/won't.   

[gunnarthor]

 

That seems to be what some here believe, yes. We just should expect multiple years of being one of the worst teams in the league, and even if they get lucky, we shouldn't expect it to last more than a year or two before they are terrible again. 

I don't think anyone has suggested that.  I think most of us realize that we can't pay our way out of the issues like big payroll teams can.  Pretending that the Twins could do what the Cubs did is fantasy.  The Cubs are paying their 3 FA starters (Lester, Lackey, Hammel) 50m this year.  For all the complaining about how the Twins misspend money for Hughes, Nolasco and Santana, just those three players made 16m less then their Cubs counterparts.  And, unlike the Cubs, the Twins aren't going to be able to add 20m in salaries at the trade deadline. 

 

Payroll is a huge advantage that, for some reason, people just don't want to accept.  When the Cubs 20+m hitter puts up worse numbers than Buxton, it's an inconvenience because that player isn't expected to be the key player for them.  That was just the cost of adding a complementary player.  

[Mike Sixel]

Payroll is an advantage. There, we all agree. Now can we all agree it is not ok to be this bad this long? That payroll should not be an excuse to be bad? That seems like a reasonable request to me.

 

They are bad because they've not acquired enough talent, either thru the draft, trades or FA. Not because they don't have enough money to be good.

[David HK]

 

I think you are on something or onto something. Maybe they can even turn a couple of the suspects in the rotation into bullpen assets. I'm thinking about Gibson and Duffey especially. Then maybe they do the same on defense- move Sano to first or DH and plug something resembling a major league catcher and shortstop onto the field. Those are moves a mid-market team ought to be able to accomplish in an offseason.

Aye aye.  Thing #1 has got to be stop making the incredibly stupid decisions they've undertaken the past couple of years- like Trevor May and Alex Meyer in the bullpen, and Mr. Sano to the OF- moves that even the most casual fan on the sidewalk would never consider.  Like holding on to Mr. Plouffe way, way, way past his sell-by date.  Like letting a solid catcher like John Hicks just fall through the AAA cracks, going on to post a +.900 OPS, through sheer not-paying-attention.  Need I go on?  I can, and that's the saddest part.  

Any question about pitchers who don't work out here, and go on to blossom elsewhere, as soon as they're out of the Twinkie tutelage?  The utterly ridiculous grab-bag lineups that Molly threw out there day after day?  The way he jerked around nearly every kid who came up to the bigs?  

OK, I'll stop now, but only because I'm tired, not because I ran out of stupid.  

So, how about it, new guy?  Can you stop that fools' parade?

[Vanimal46]

 

I don't think anyone has suggested that.  I think most of us realize that we can't pay our way out of the issues like big payroll teams can.  Pretending that the Twins could do what the Cubs did is fantasy.  The Cubs are paying their 3 FA starters (Lester, Lackey, Hammel) 50m this year.  For all the complaining about how the Twins misspend money for Hughes, Nolasco and Santana, just those three players made 16m less then their Cubs counterparts.  And, unlike the Cubs, the Twins aren't going to be able to add 20m in salaries at the trade deadline. 

 

Payroll is a huge advantage that, for some reason, people just don't want to accept.  When the Cubs 20+m hitter puts up worse numbers than Buxton, it's an inconvenience because that player isn't expected to be the key player for them.  That was just the cost of adding a complementary player.  

Even before the Cubs went out and spent a boat load on Lester, Lackey, Hammel, and Heyward, they hit the jackpot on a couple of trades and the draft... Trades are still something the Twins could be doing a lot more of. In recent memory, far too often the Twins are on the losing side of their trades. The only one that we can tip our cap to the previous regime is Fuld for Milone, which didn't move the needle that much. 

[TheLeviathan]

Payroll should not be an excuse.  It's also a significant advantage.  Those are not mutually exclusive.

[old nurse]

 

Payroll is an advantage. There, we all agree. Now can we all agree it is not ok to be this bad this long? That payroll should not be an excuse to be bad? That seems like a reasonable request to me.

 

They are bad because they've not acquired enough talent, either thru the draft, trades or FA. Not because they don't have enough money to be good.

I do not think anyone has ever said they are bad due to payroll. Payroll limits  what you can add. The bad is not due to the one or two players you can not add.  Payroll comes into play when you are good trying to achieve excellence .

Edited October 26, 2016 by old nurse

[Mr. Brooks]

Payroll should not be an excuse. It's also a significant advantage. Those are not mutually exclusive.

This is exactly what I was going to post. Well said.

 

Just because you start at a disadvantage doesn't mean you give up.

You find a way to close that gap by being smarter and more efficient.

[USAFChief]

When ownership consistently spends what they could be spending, I'll accept payroll as a limitation. Until then, it's an excuse. A lame, tired, unsupported excuse.

[SadMinnySportsFan]

Have to agree with you-the only thing the Twins cant do that the Cubs have is sign a guy like Lester to a big contract. The rest of their starters are signed to reasonable deals or acquired via trade. I hope that Favley can follow the Indians blue print, where their pitching came from many different areas (international signings, trades, drafting) my bigger concern with the twins is if the entire minor league and developmental staff stays in tact. Both the Indians and cubs have built their world series squads primarily by developing the guys they acquire. I don't have much faith in the Twins developing talent.
Lets also hope Favley reverses the trend of hanging onto players for loo long. Both Epstien and Indians guy Shapiro traded veterans for guys now contributing to their world series team.

[KirbyDome89]

 

As long as the Pohlad's own this team, you're never going to see a high payroll.  Cleveland and the Royals are the teams the Twins should be copying.  Cleveland traded for Kluber - who was never a top 100 prospect - for example.  The Cubs have advantages that the Twins, Royals and Cleveland don't so it doesn't make sense to compare.  Teams with 200m payrolls can erase errors that the Twins can't/won't.   

Nobody is advocating the Twins payroll reach 200+ million. Likewise nobody is stating that the Cubs don't have a monetary advantage. However, that club didn't just shop for FAs for a few years and buy their way into the WS. They made good trades, drafted well, developed young talent, found the right manager, ect...Those are all things that the Twins are absolutely capable of doing, so yes it makes perfect sense to compare the two clubs in that regard. 

[gunnarthor]

 

Nobody is advocating the Twins payroll reach 200+ million. Likewise nobody is stating that the Cubs don't have a monetary advantage. However, that club didn't just shop for FAs for a few years and buy their way into the WS. They made good trades, drafted well, developed young talent, found the right manager, ect...Those are all things that the Twins are absolutely capable of doing, so yes it makes perfect sense to compare the two clubs in that regard. 

Things like drafting, trades, development etc are things ALL teams do - it's the reason Cleveland is in the WS this year and the reason the Royals won it last year.  No one thinks the Twins can't or shouldn't do that.  But comparing the Twins to the Cubs - the "it" team of the moment - is a purposefully false comparison.  The Cubs are where they are because of payroll.  They wouldn't be the Cubs without that payroll.  If they had the limits the Twins had, there is no evidence that they would be in the WS.  There is evidence that teams with similar or worse payroll handicaps to the Twins have made the WS and those are the teams we should be looking at.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The Cubs are where they are because of payroll.  They wouldn't be the Cubs without that payroll.  

 

I like most of your post, but this goes a bit farther than I'm comfortable with.  This is still a very good team without those big signings, but they haven't even fully unleashed their payroll possibilities yet.  Right now they're where they are mostly from savvy GM work.

 

The money is going to be the factor that keeps them in this conversation far longer than a team like the Indians.

[jimmer]

Last year they won the 3rd most games in baseball (even though they had to play in the division that had the best and 2nd best records)and their payroll was well within what the Twins could spend if they chose to.

 

And the core of this team is young, deep and inexpensive and were brought to the team by means other than FA signings.  The expensive players (the whopping 4 getting more 11M or more a year) aren't making this a playoff team, it would be a playoff team without them.  A couple of the expensive players are making it an elite team.  Of the four who get over 11M a year, one of them is a position player who has severely under-performed and didn't start last night (nor will tonight).  Another is a catcher who has hit horribly this year. The other two are pitchers that have been very good, that's for sure.  Without those two maybe they only win 94 games.

Edited October 26, 2016 by jimmer

[old nurse]

A starting rotation oh Hendricks, Arietta, Montgomery, Cahill and whoever else is in their system might be in the playoffs, but not for long.

[jimmer]

Hammell is getting paid 10M.  Most teams can afford that, Cubs aren't the only ones. With the offense this team has (3rd best in baseball even without Schwarber) and defense this team plays (best in baseball, easily), I'd take my chances with Hendricks (ERA leader), Hammell, Arrieta (former CY Young winner), Montgomery and Cahill. Certainly teams with much worst rotations and offense, have won W Series.  Last year, for example.  Certainly a team with such a great offensive and defense wouldn't become super weak without Lackey and Lester.

 

Perhaps having players like Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, Baez, Contreras, Fowler help along with having a great manager. They won all those games without even the benefit of having Schwarber. 

Edited October 26, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

If you're going to play Schwarber in the OF, I"m not sure having him is all that much of a plus.  They have to figure that out.  

 

What makes the Cubs different than the Indians is that they can spend more on Lester, The poster boy for everything wrong with WAR - Heyward, and Lackey than the entire active Indians roster.  That is an advantage right now and that advantage will only grow over time.

 

Again, not an excuse, but accepting and acknowledging that fact is every bit as vital to this discussion as accepting that the Twins can spend more than they do.

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Things like drafting, trades, development etc are things ALL teams do - it's the reason Cleveland is in the WS this year and the reason the Royals won it last year.  No one thinks the Twins can't or shouldn't do that.  But comparing the Twins to the Cubs - the "it" team of the moment - is a purposefully false comparison.  The Cubs are where they are because of payroll.  They wouldn't be the Cubs without that payroll.  If they had the limits the Twins had, there is no evidence that they would be in the WS.  There is evidence that teams with similar or worse payroll handicaps to the Twins have made the WS and those are the teams we should be looking at.

I realize ALL winning teams do those things well, that was my point, they aren't unique to Chicago and therefore the Twins can follow that path.  

 

Significant FA signings the past few years:

John Lackey - 2 years $32 million

Ben Zobrist - 4 years $54 million, 

Dexter Fowler - 2 years $17 million

Chris Coghlan - 1 year $5 million 

Jason Hammel - 2 years $20 million

Jon Lester - 6 years $155 million

Miguel Montero - 6 years $66 million

David Ross - 1 year $2 million

Jason Heyward - 8 years $184 million

 

Significant players drafted or acquired via trades:

Jake Arrieta - $11 million this year, arb eligible next year

Kris Bryant - arb eligible 2019

Javier Baez - arb eligible 2019

Willson Contreras - arb eligible 2019

Kyle Hendricks - arb eligible 2018

Anthony Rizzo - 7 years $41 million....seriously that is his actual contract

Addison Russell - arb eligible 2019

Kyle Schwarber - arb eligible 2019

Jorge Soler - 4 years $15 million left

Aroldis Chapman - 1 year $11 million

 

If you look at those two lists with even a small amount of objectivity I don't understand how you can think they purchased their ticket to the WS or they would only be there because their payroll is so deep. Seriously, the draft/trade list is almost their entire lineup. Zobrist, Ross, and Fowler are the only FA position players seeing regular action this postseason, and Fowler hasn't exactly been lighting it up. Heyward has been awful and is now on the bench! Coghlan and Montero have played sparingly. Hammel isn't even on the postseason roster. Lester and Lackey have been solid no doubt. Honestly though, the idea that this team is in the position they are because of their payroll just isn't true. There are 3 contracts on that team that exceed all contracts currently on the Twins books (not counting Mauer here, didn't think that was really fair) and of those three, two of them; Heyward and Montero, have done nothing in the postseason and really haven't been good all year. If the Twins can drop $50 and $55 million on Ervin and Ricky I see no reason the Lacky, Hammel, and Zobrist types are off limits. So when you boil it down, the Cubs have been so successful this season because of a young core of studs on rookie contracts, mid level FA signings that have been solid, trades that have worked out well, and one big FA acquisition. I'm not buying the idea that because the Cubs signed Lester, their philosophy of constructing a winning team is somehow beyond the Twins. My hope is that when Mauer's contract comes off the books that money is allocated towards upper tier pitching, because this team DESPERATELY needs it. Even if that isn't the case, looking at the breakdown of who is contributing and what they're making I see no reason the Twins can't do the same. 

 

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

If you're going to play Schwarber in the OF, I"m not sure having him is all that much of a plus.  They have to figure that out.  

 

What makes the Cubs different than the Indians is that they can spend more on Lester, The poster boy for everything wrong with WAR - Heyward, and Lackey than the entire active Indians roster.  That is an advantage right now and that advantage will only grow over time.

 

Again, not an excuse, but accepting and acknowledging that fact is every bit as vital to this discussion as accepting that the Twins can spend more than they do.

 

OMG....Heyward has a bad year at the plate, proves WAR is bad/evil/wrong? Unreal.

[jimmer]

 

OMG....Heyward has a bad year at the plate, proves WAR is bad/evil/wrong? Unreal.

I'm not sure it's unreal.  Ridiculous maybe, but not unreal :-)

 

As you know, it's not like WAR continued to say that he was a 5-6 WAR player this year regardless of his horrible season at the plate.  He went from a wRC+ of 120 last year to 72 this year and his WAR dropped over 4 points. His defense was still awesome, but his offense was horrible and his WAR this year reflected that.

Edited October 27, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

OMG....Heyward has a bad year at the plate, proves WAR is bad/evil/wrong? Unreal.

His bleh offense has always been masked by wonky defensive WAR ratings. Anyone who places too much value on the stat without recognizing that should take him as a case in point to temper your view. He is the poster boy for why you should really moderate your stance on that stat if you haven't already.

 

It's still fine if you recognize the deep flaws and use it correctly. But virtually no one does so...yeah.

[drivlikejehu]

Well, Heyward is legitimately very good on defense, so I'm not sure how WAR is "wrong" to incorporate his defensive stats. Turns out that corner OF defense is actually pretty important.

[jimmer]

 

OMG....Heyward has a bad year at the plate, proves WAR is bad/evil/wrong? Unreal.

Or like Cameron said yesterday:

 

'I think it’s mostly confirmation bias. There’s been a vocal anti-Heyward crowd for years because they didn’t like the idea that a corner outfielder with average power could be an elite player. So now that he’s struggling, they’re just saying “I told you so” rather than looking at his performance objectively.'

[USAFChief]

 

Well, Heyward is legitimately very good on defense, so I'm not sure how WAR is "wrong" to incorporate his defensive stats. Turns out that corner OF defense is actually pretty important.

That's one theory.

 

 

[jimmer]

 

Well, Heyward is legitimately very good on defense, so I'm not sure how WAR is "wrong" to incorporate his defensive stats. Turns out that corner OF defense is actually pretty important.

Ryan has made it clear over the years that corner OF is basically the least important thing for a team. One of many reasons why I'm glad he's gone.  Defense is important at every position and punting defense shouldn't be something a team does so easily.

[USAFChief]

 

Or like Cameron said yesterday:

 

'I think it’s mostly confirmation bias. There’s been a vocal anti-Heyward crowd for years because they didn’t like the idea that a corner outfielder with average power could be an elite player. So now that he’s struggling, they’re just saying “I told you so” rather than looking at his performance objectively.'

If merely removing power from Heyward takes hiim from "elite" to "bench," maybe he wasn't truly "elite" to begin with.

 

Cameron has an odd way of admitting he was wrong.

[Willihammer]

Re Heyward, 2016 looks like an outlier to me.

He's still 27. Lots of time to make good on that contract.

[Mike Sixel]

Not sure you read that right......he didn't just lose power this year. And, shockingly, his WAR reflects that. When he doesn't hit, no amount of corner D makes him a good player. Have you actually looked at his WAR this year.....because that is what WAR says, he was mediocre overall.....

 

I remain boggled people want to not take into account any defensive "score" when deciding players are good or not...

[jimmer]

 

Re Heyward, 2016 looks like an outlier to me.
He's still 27. Lots of time to make good on that contract.

yeah, I'm not worried about him.  Even if he gets back to being even a league average offensive player, he'll still be very valuable with that defense.